Apple was ranked the eighth most valuable brand of the world in 2011, with an estimated total value of $33.49 billion, making it bigger than Disney, Mercedes-Benz and Budweiser.

The 2011 rankings were released on Monday by Bloomberg as part of Interbrand's Best Global Brands 2011 report. It found that Apple increased its brand value by 58 percent year over year, helping it surge 9 places from the No. 17 spot it held in 2010.

Apple's tremendous year over year growth in brand value was by far the largest of any company in the top 100. The next closest in terms of growth was Amazon, which grew its value by 32 percent in 2011 to bring it to $12.76 billion, good for 26th place.

The No. 1 company again this year was Coca-Cola, which has an estimated brand value of $71.86 billion. It grew 2 percent year over year to maintain its lead.

Narrowing the gap in second place was IBM, with a brand value of $69.91 billion. IBM's brand saw 8 percent growth in value in 2011.

Apple's rival Microsoft was the third most valuable brand in the world in 2011, estimated at $59.1 billion. But the Redmond, Wash., software giant saw some of its value disappear last year, posting a 3 percent year over year loss from 2010.

Another Apple rival, Google, came in fourth with its brand estimated at $55.31 billion. The search company grew its brand value 27 percent year over year in 2011.

In fifth was GE ($42.81 billion), followed by McDonald's ($35.59 billion) and Intel ($35.22 billion). Apple in eighth was followed by Disney ($29.02 billion) and HP ($28.48 billion).

Other noteworthy companies on the list were Nokia, sliding 6 spots to No. 14, and losing 15 percent of its value to hit $25.07 billion; Samsung, growing 20 percent year over year to hit $23.43 billion and 17th place; and Sony, which lost 13 percent of its value last year to hit $9.88 billion and slip one spot to No. 35.

Apple first cracked the top 20 global brands in the same survey in 2009, when its brand value was estimated at $15.4 billion. The company has steadily seen its brand name value rise over the last decade, as its products have continued to grow in popularity.

The top ten listed corporations are all US based. The USA is a country where 20% of it's citizens under 12 live in poverty. Is our country that much better growing super companies or do other countries actually tax corporations, bringing money back to its citizens and raising the quality of life far beyond the citizens of the USA?

The top ten listed corporations are all US based. The USA is a country where 20% of it's citizens under 12 live in poverty. Is our country that much better growing super companies or do other countries actually tax corporations, bringing money back to its citizens and raising the quality of life far beyond the citizens of the USA?

Relevant to the thread?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ireland

That list is laughable.

I don't understand how IBM is 2nd. Coke- I get it. But shouldn't google be second?

I mean- people order a "coke" even when it's Pepsi, and people "google" regardless of their search engine. Google really was brilliant with their branding. So new of a company to be listed amongst that group.

I assume they take tenure into account... But why? How many 14 year olds know what IBM is? They all know google and Micky Ds

More to the point, how is Google worth more than Apple, Intel, GE, or McDonald's?

And IBM? Since they got out of personal computers, the brand value should have plummeted.

Hah- i just made a post asking why they aren't 2nd.

People don't buy an "apple" when they get a dell. Or buy an "intel" when they buy amd. Or get GE instead of electricity. McDonalds I could see. You show 100000 people across the world a GE logo and a McDonald logo- which is easier recognized?

The top ten listed corporations are all US based. The USA is a country where 20% of it's citizens under 12 live in poverty. Is our country that much better growing super companies or do other countries actually tax corporations, bringing money back to its citizens and raising the quality of life far beyond the citizens of the USA?

Then why do people continue to risk their lives to make it to the U.S.A? Why aren't U.S. citizens fleeing to these other superior countries? Where's the mass emigration to greener pastures?

The top ten listed corporations are all US based. The USA is a country where 20% of it's citizens under 12 live in poverty. Is our country that much better growing super companies or do other countries actually tax corporations, bringing money back to its citizens and raising the quality of life far beyond the citizens of the USA?

Your time would be better spent in a soup kitchen or something, taking care of all of those poor people that you supposedly care about, which caused you to engage in an off topic, socialist political rant.

The fact of the matter is that the USA rules all, and I suggest that you move to a different place if you disagree. The USA is not a good country for lazy people and socialists and other freeloaders who are in favor of wealth distribution and other fascist liberal policies.

The top ten listed corporations are all US based. The USA is a country where 20% of it's citizens under 12 live in poverty. Is our country that much better growing super companies or do other countries actually tax corporations, bringing money back to its citizens and raising the quality of life far beyond the citizens of the USA?

You are a victim of statistical manipulation. For starters that 20% is an exaggerated 15% , also thats 'comparative' poverty, comparative to the wealthiest in the nation. Which, in a nation full of rich people, means jack.

I hear British socialists convincing themselves with these stats every day, trying to justify their sorry blood sucking existence .

Your time would be better spent in a soup kitchen or something, taking care of all of those poor people that you supposedly care about, which caused you to engage in an off topic, socialist political rant.

The fact of the matter is that the USA rules all, and I suggest that you move to a different place if you disagree. The USA is not a good country for lazy people and socialists and other freeloaders who are in favor of wealth distribution and other fascist liberal policies.

That's skewed logic if I ever heard it. So raising a good point in a public media forum in an attempt to sway some people (perhaps to vote, or do something rather than sit on their 'esses') is somehow less effective than ONLY removing himself from any public debate, thereby nullifying his chances of big picture effectiveness? Yeah, right.

And anyway, who's to say he does't work in a soup kitchen too? What have you done lately?

And no, the USA with it's 4% of world population and highest actual debt of any country on the planet (14+ trillion dollars) does NOT rule ALL; not even close and less so every day. Your comment has to be one of the most laughable examples of chest-thumping I've read on this forum to date. You sound like that lump of lard Rush Limbough. Now there's someone who could get off his lazy butt and actually do something.

Pride is fine but your kind of triumphalist arrogance is exactly what makes people like the Canadians (a civilized people* all in all who prefer their taxes go to medical care rather than starting wars) quick to point out they're not their neighbors to the south.

*Except in hockey when they suddenly turn into some pretty tough hombres.

Then why do people continue to risk their lives to make it to the U.S.A? Why aren't U.S. citizens fleeing to these other superior countries? Where's the mass emigration to greener pastures?

I'm not saying there are countries that are extremely poor, most of these companies manufacture in these countries to produce higher profits and lower prices for the west. However in the so called developed countries the US is falling behind in education, affordable health care, and the ability to retire with a secure pension. If you care about your country the way that I do you would want to make it better for everyone and that includes the next generation. My elderly parents admitted to me recently that for the first time in 8 decades of life they have lost faith in our system. This is coming from the generation that lived through the great depression and fought WW2. If it makes you feel better about yourself that you live in a country that has the riches corporations you probably get excited when a professional sports team wins a championship. You benefit financially from neither unless you own stock in those corporations or sports teams.

For poor people? Absolutely nothing, as I'm not fond of poor people and I am anti-charity. People are poor because of a variety of reasons, but the main ones in my view are laziness, lack of intelligence, lack of education, poor parenting and a pathetic sense of entitlement combined with an ignorant political outlook which causes many poor people to remain dirt poor. Basically, it's their own fault and I don't really give a shit about them.

Then why do people continue to risk their lives to make it to the U.S.A? Why aren't U.S. citizens fleeing to these other superior countries? Where's the mass emigration to greener pastures?

I think it's to Canada (my brother is there too), I do believe one a million Americans have emigrated there. And from what I understand they receive a pretty warm welcome. This as fewer and fewer Canadians choose to migrate to the US.

How more useless can a list be? Can anybody explain, what IBM is doing up there? And please GE ??

The only one I question is HP at #10. I thought it would be behind a lot of other companies that are below it but I guess its current worth plus chance of future earnings [which I thought would drop it down a few notches] puts it into the top 10.

For poor people? Absolutely nothing, as I'm not fond of poor people and I am anti-charity. People are poor because of a variety of reasons, but the main ones in my view are laziness, lack of intelligence, lack of education, poor parenting and a pathetic sense of entitlement combined with an ignorant political outlook which causes many poor people to remain dirt poor. Basically, it's their own fault and I don't really give a shit about them.

WOW. Your honesty is matched only by your ignorance and sense of your own entitlement. Sociopaths take note, this is how it's done.

For poor people? Absolutely nothing, as I'm not fond of poor people and I am anti-charity. People are poor because of a variety of reasons, but the main ones in my view are laziness, lack of intelligence, lack of education, poor parenting and a pathetic sense of entitlement combined with an ignorant political outlook which causes many poor people to remain dirt poor. Basically, it's their own fault and I don't really give a shit about them.

I think it's to Canada (my brother is there too), I do believe one a million Americans have emigrated there. And from what I understand they receive a pretty warm welcome. This as fewer and fewer Canadians choose to migrate to the US.

The top ten listed corporations are all US based. The USA is a country where 20% of it's citizens under 12 live in poverty. Is our country that much better growing super companies or do other countries actually tax corporations, bringing money back to its citizens and raising the quality of life far beyond the citizens of the USA?

Silly noob, that would be like eating our seed corn. People aren't poor because other people aren't taxed enough. The actual solution is to reduce taxes and regulations on business sufficiently to make the USA a business friendly country once again so that there are jobs available for those willing to take them. You know, that whole liberty concept that the country was founded on. Anybody still poor where work is available is lazy and deserves to be poor.

You do realize Apples used to actually be made in California for many years, not just headquartered there, right? If you care about poor people in the USA, then you would care about changing the tax and regulatory environment that forced Apple (and everyone else) to move so much of their business out of California and out of the country. OTOH, your ideas would only accelerate the destruction of what is left of the American economy and make everyone poor.

Silly noob, that would be like eating our seed corn. People aren't poor because other people aren't taxed enough. The actual solution is to reduce taxes and regulations on business sufficiently to make the USA a business friendly country once again so that there are jobs available for those willing to take them. You know, that whole liberty concept that the country was founded on. Anybody still poor where work is available is lazy and deserves to be poor.

You do realize Apples used to actually be made in California for many years, not just headquartered there, right? If you care about poor people in the USA, then you would care about changing the tax and regulatory environment that forced Apple (and everyone else) to move so much of their business out of California and out of the country. OTOH, your ideas would only accelerate the destruction of what is left of the American economy and make everyone poor.

Yeah, all those out of work Ford assembly line workers DESERVE to be poor and work in a minimum wage place like Wal-Mart because ya know, they're just plain LAZY.

You ignoramus. Americans like you who don't fight for workers rights at home are why our big companies (Apple guilty here too) are allowed to farm out our jobs to nations even less respect for for the rights of the working man. The Chinese are laughing all the way to the bank as our trade deficit with them widens. Happy?

So selling sugared water is still more "valuable" than changing the world. But at the rate Apple is moving up, it will be number 2 in a year or two. Then we'll see about that "change-y thing." (Thank you, Sarah Palin.)

By the way, Apple's business sector on the chart should read "electronics, computer software, Internet services, media." It is the only company on the list that has a 3-D business model. Vertical and horizontal integration in the traditional sense, plus something entirely new in business history: a mission to change the world in the future (the third dimension), which is why they need to be so holistic in their organization. They have a higher and deeper goal than all the others.

I don't understand how IBM is 2nd. Coke- I get it. But shouldn't google be second?

I mean- people order a "coke" even when it's Pepsi, and people "google" regardless of their search engine. Google really was brilliant with their branding. So new of a company to be listed amongst that group.

Do you know that Google has no significant presence in the most populous country in the world? When Chinese people do a web search, most likely they are using Baidu.

Google will never be number one in this ranking until they establish a strong presence in China.